Not enough room in DNA

Yes, in fact, there are major differences. Biological systems are self-replicating. Most non-biological systems that I know of are not. This has serious implications, which it would be worth your time to investigate.If you're going to try to prove that you can detect design by complexity, I have a couple of questions. First, which is more indicative of design: a perfectly round, polished steel sphere exactly 20cm in diameter, or a tree? How do you know?And a second question: is the following a result of natural, unguided processes, or is it an example of intentional design? How do you know for sure?

---

I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John LydonWhat's the difference between a conspiracy theorist and a new puppy? The puppy eventually grows up and quits whining.
-Steven Dutch

Why are you assuming that complexity makes something look like it has been designed? I see the staggering complexity of the Mandlebrot Set, yet I certainly don't ever think that it was "designed". You seem to be assuming that which you are attempting to demonstrate. Yes, because of the millions of examples we have of laptops being a result of human design, and the complete absence of any examples of laptops arising that have not been designed. This has nothing to do with "complexity".Or are you suggesting that perhaps a much less complex laptop, say one from the early 90s like my old Compaq, wasn't designed because it was substantially less complex that the Vaio on which I am typing this message? Nonsense - we know laptops are designed because we have millions of examples of laptops being designed and no examples of laptops that have not been designed. We have zero examples of any biological system being designed, unless you are again trying to assume that which you are attempting to demonstrate?It appears that there is a distinct lack of valid logic in the arguments you are presenting. Have you any better arguments?

Hi Coyote,

quote:

---

Creation.com has the following in their "Age of the earth" page:

​

Radiometric dating
51. Carbon-14 in coal suggests ages of thousands of years and clearly contradict ages of millions of years.
52. Carbon-14 in oil again suggests ages of thousands, not millions, of years.
53. Carbon-14 in fossil wood also indicates ages of thousands, not millions, of years.
54. Carbon-14 in diamonds suggests ages of thousands, not billions, of years.

​

All four of these are absolutely wrong and reflect common errors passed from one creationist website to another.

​

If you want to debate these I'd be happy to oblige--on a different thread. Find one of the radiocarbon threads and post this and I'll show you where each is absolutely wrong.

---

What repeatable, verifiable evidence can you provide that confirms the accuracy of any of the radiometric dating methods currently used today.I feel quite sure that we will have to agree to disagree on the veracity of dating techniques, but if you wish to go through the usual arguments, I can oblige but it is likely going to a repetition of the same debate.I live in a coal mining town in Australia and see first hand a massive volume of evidence for a massive flood event on a whole planet scale. Interestingly atop and below each coal seam are leaves sticks and twigs that are still wood, and look very much like leaves and twigs that you find on the forest floor when bush walking. Obviously the temperature was insufficient at the margins to convert this material to anthracite as is the case only centimetres away.
By the way these coal seams are about 150 metres to 200 metres below the surface under a range of sedimentary strata that all have knife edge boundaries in the horizontal plane. My point being that this is typical of rapid deposition. Interestingly enough these are dated by radiometric methods as being late Permian 255 Ma. Amazing that sticks and leaves have lasted that long without deterioration don't you think. The seams are exposed in huge open cut pits.The RD age doesn't fit the logical explanation that the coal and the sticks aren't as old as many would like make out. This is not hearsay, I'm talking about what I see with my own eyes.
It is the interpretation that dictates the result.Other topics in this area include radio halos, excess argon in "old"dated samples and helium diffusion rates.Go for it, the dialogue could hopefully prove to be stimulating.All the best and thanks for your interest.CT

quote:

---

Nonsense - we know laptops are designed because we have millions of examples of laptops being designed and no examples of laptops that have not been designed. We have zero examples of any biological system being designed, unless you are again trying to assume that which you are attempting to demonstrate?

---

Using that logic an archeologist that digs up previously unknown and unseen types of artifacts cannot be certain that the artifacts are indeed intelligently made, even though it would be obvious even to a small child that the artifact was made by someone at some time in the past.Cheers,CT

Examples please?

Please do not change the subject. You asked for examples of where Creation.com was wrong and Coyote presented four perfectly laughable examples of idiocy from this site - irrespective of what one thinks of the accuracy of any type of dating, anyone with any knowledge of carbon dating (which includes Coyote, an expert, myself to a much lesser degree, as a physicist, but obviously not you and Creation.com) would recognise these examples are utterly fallacious.Now, as it was you that requested this information regarding Creation.com, perhaps you would be so kind to reply to Coyote on that topic.

Wait, what?Your example for overlapping, different biological functions is binding sites for regulatory functions? Do you not see a problem with that? It's like protesting that you use a car key to turn a car engine on and off!

Thank you.And the response should be on a different thread as I requested. It is off topic on this thread.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Ah... I think I made a bit of a mistake here... When you wrote, in your first message "THERE'S NOT ENOUGH ROOM IN THE DNA", I though you were stating your position. I thought you were speaking up in support of the OP, in regard to the claim about DNA. In retrospect and in the light of your response here, I can see that you were not. You were just re-stating the title of the thread, before going off on a tangent.It had me a little confused about where you were coming from. So, my apologies for that. Let's get back on track! Must I? I beg to differ. Looks designed to whom? To you? To a biologist? To me? To Ken Ham?Clearly living things don't look designed to everyone. To me, they look evolved. This has already been addressed, not just by others in this thread, but by many people over the last century and a half. The only reason this would be assumed is because you know for a fact that laptops are designed. If you had never encountered a laptop, if it was completely novel to you, you would still be able to tell that it was designed, because it would carry a corporate logo, written language, etc., all known features of designed objects, not found in nature.The only thing your laptop and a biological organism have in common is their complexity. Unfortunately for you, the complexity of a living thing is so vastly greater than a laptop that it argues against it being designed, not for. I don't see why. The most skilled designers we know of are human. They could not design a living thing (yet). The fact is that no known designer could create such a thing. Now you could postulate a superior designer, but for that idea to be meaningful, you would need to provide evidential support for the designer's existence. That is lacking.Another objection is that you are conflating the concepts of "complex" and "designed". This is not reasonable, especially since there are other explanations for complexity. We see complex structures emerging from apparent chaos every day. You seem to be seeking to just cast any explanation other than a designer to one side and ignore it. That is unreasonable.Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

Hi Cavediver,you have asked:-

quote:

---

Examples please?

---

to a simple analogy that shows the error in your statement.
That is, my response to your Message No 77.
You have missed the point entirely.
The analogy was given as a hypothetical to make the point but as you wish, I will state the obvious:-
any previously unknown type of artifact will suffice.
Museums all over the world have storerooms full of obscure artifacts that are of unknown use, unknown provenance and have not been previously seen.
Ask your nearest Curator next time your in a Museum what's in the rooms out the back and how much of it has no known use, or has ever been found before, you may get a surprise!I repeat my previously stated analogy:-
Using that logic an archeologist that digs up previously unknown and unseen types of artifacts cannot be certain that the artifacts are indeed intelligently made, even though it would be obvious even to a small child that the artifact was made by someone at some time in the past.
I hope you can comprehend the point that I am making here as it is quite straightforward.If you don't like the Museum or Archeological analogies then consider for a moment what the SETI project is about.
I hope you see the point without any further elaboration.Kind Regards,CT

Hello again Cavediver,

quote:

---

Now, as it was you that requested this information regarding Creation.com, perhaps you would be so kind to reply to Coyote on that topic.

---

Perhaps, you or Coyote could be more specific about EXACTLY where the alleged errors are in the listed publications.And I agree, it should be on another thread.Many Thank's,CT

Actually, we know something like that would be designed because we can either reverse engineer how it was designed, or have examples of similar things that we know ere designed. None of this is true for living organisms. Or perhaps you could reverse engineer for us how they were designed? SETI also does not applly here, becuase if we ever picked up a radio signal from aliens, we would probably be able to reverse engineer the kind of transmitter used based on the signal itself.So, your analogies are false.

Hi ZenMonkey,your statement:-

quote:

---

Yes, in fact, there are major differences. Biological systems are self-replicating. Most non-biological systems that I know of are not. This has serious implications, which it would be worth your time to investigate.

---

Specifically, What serious implications?

quote:

---

If you're going to try to prove that you can detect design by complexity, I have a couple of questions. First, which is more indicative of design: a perfectly round, polished steel sphere exactly 20cm in diameter, or a tree? How do you know?

---

Answer:- Both are indicative of design. Intelligence and information is required to create both!

quote:

---

a second question: is the following a result of natural, unguided processes, or is it an example of intentional design? How do you know for sure?

---

The markings are made by an insect that is operating in accordance with the design instructions encoded within it's DNA, The DNA itself being another perfect example of design, not only by complexity but also by relevant function.
The massive amount of intelligence required to design the information storage system, the encoding and decoding machinery, {which is itself a product of the information coded on the DNA} and the information itself, makes it obvious to me that it has been designed. Evolutionary theory is totally deficient as a plausible explanation for this. Random mutations do not bring about novel information; they only duplicate existing information at best or lose information which is usually the case.Re your photograph:- as an aside;
Ogmograptis scribula
On some species of Eucalyptus in Australia there is a little grub that hatches out under the bark. It then eats away in a very similar manner to the markings on the photograph that you have supplied. For more info see:- http://www.csiro.au/resources/ps28j.html
The insect that made the markings in your photo is very likely similar to the abovementioned insect.All the best,CT

Has an archaeologist ever confused a buried tree with such an artefact? Are fossils routinely misclassified as artefacts of ancient civilisation?The problem with your analogy is that it's completely wrong; it's extremely rare for people to confuse human artefacts and natural objects. If you came across a watch in a forest, you're not going to confuse the human made watch with the trees all around it.

You failed to answer the second, and most important, part of the question; "How do you know?".